There's a tendency of ideologues to value ideological purity over fitness for use. This is fine as long as people acknowledging their pure thought stuff is mal

There's a tendency of ideologues to value ideological purity over fitness for use. This is fine as long as people acknowledging their pure thought stuff is malleable. One of Ted's memorable issues was in say indexing documents. He's wanted the markup to exist in a separate document that was byte addressable, not inline. So a separate index file. I asked him "what about locales? Some systems are UTF 16." And you know, instead of I dunno, admitting that not doing a packet, block, or inline format was a mistake, he just insisted it'll be handled later. I asked him about cadence, how will you do versioning between the two, things are grossly inefficient if you change one byte, etc.. One of the other nice things of inline systems is you can get a partial file and still have all the context. With that system however, corruption is way too easy. There's all these technical requirements to his grand idea that he asserts are completely absolutely necessary and have no technical equivalencies at all and do not have the obvious design and implementation limitations that can easily be overcome with very slight permutations in a way that still completely satisfies all practical usecases. And he loves saying he's not a programmer. It's like come on Ted, trust the people who say you're micromanaging of implementation is erroneous. It's been like 50 years, some of your stuff doesn't work. He shouldn't be bitter. Everyone technical in the field knows him. He's up there with Stallman, Knuth, and Shannon in name recognition. I probably won't even appear as a footnote no matter how hard I work. So yeah, mission fucking accomplished already Ted. Geez.